and how were they first armed to begin with?

I am not suggesting we believe a liar as big as Quadaffi who claims they are Al Qaida, but as there doesn't seem to be any clear leadership, wouldn't it behoove us to ask just who it is we are backing?

These rebels didn't just spring up out of a vacuum, and they aren't fighting Quadaffi's forces with rocks and pitchforks, so who are they? and who has been funding them up until now?

I would think that enquiring minds would like to know. Millions of other people all around the world are also being slaughtered and we don't lift a finger to help, why are the Libyans so special, besides the obvious fact that they have oil, but that's Europe's problem not ours, or at least it ought to be if we are expected to spend several billion dollars more supporting "their" action in Libya. I don't see them offering to subidize "our" wars in Iraq and Afganistan, why should we pay for their war in Libya?

& what if the "Libyan rebels" turn out out to be
Muslim theocrats ? NOT good. U.S needs to stop wars in all 3 countries ( with exception of predator drone program on Afghan/Pak border which I support ) & get the fuck out NOW .

Why don't we hear this from the US Press (This is British military release)

"Should Operation Odyssey Dawn end in a divided Libya, the danger of it becoming a Jihadist terror base will be real. There are reports that radical Islamist elements are already active in the rebel held eastern part of Libya. Taking advantage of the ongoing chaos, a large group of Islamist gunmen, believed to be members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), recently seized a weapons depot in the eastern Libyan port city of Derna. Calling itself the “Islamist Emirate of Baraqa,” the group, assisted by a former Libyan Army Colonel named Adnan al-Nwisri, seized a large cache of weapons. There may be other Islamic groups active in this area, which have not yet been identified."

Actually, I have seen this reported.  As for why Libya, I'd say we've long regretted not stepping in to stop the Rwanda genocide.  I, for one, believe we have an obligation to back up our too often verbal support of democracy around the world.  That said, we do have our limits, especially now, which is why Obama insisted on a broad coalition and a limited time frame.  Of course, he's also being hammered for that, too, though I'd say it's mere political posturing.  Finally, I think we'll reap benefits in the Arab world for our support of the rebels, though we'll have to watch the Libyan Islamists carefully.  Like the man said, you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.
PS:  I doubt our Libyan efforts will cost even one billion, let alone several.  We'll see.

What’s the difference between a king or tyrant or (elected) official who without senate, house ala congressional approval and at the drop of a hat single handedly commits his military to kill, main destroy others in an attempt to maintain stability?

Obama/Gaddafi/Obama /Kadafi I just don't know.

Good thing there's such a thing as due process here or else I'd be in deep shit.....ummmmmmmmmmm

Help me Mr. Wizard.


-- Modified on 3/24/2011 8:22:39 AM

As much as I do not like Obama, I think it is silly to compare him to Kadafi.  To my knowledge, Obama did not send in the Air Force to bomb the Wisconsin State House. Nor did he send thugs to smash heads at Tea Party Rallies.  I don't recall any stories of him imprisoning and torturing his opposition.

This is like the Hitler/Whoever analogy.  I don't think people should be precluded from making them, but the are silly.

If you can't see the difference between Obama and Kadafi, you have no knowledge of Kadafi.

and in all fairness, no one else seems to have any answers either, just speculation and rhetoric.

My question was an honest one, and I have not made up my mind whether or not I feel our actions in Libya are justified. Without more information, I honestly don't know if we are humanitarians, or just saps, following the lead of our "allies".

I completely agree with you!  How refreshing!  Either that or I've fallen through the rabbit hole!

First of all, this isn't a "war," (though I'm sure you'll disagree with that) and our participation is very limited and should remain so.  No matter what you call it, the Libyan intervention cannot legitimately be compared to Iraq (where we never should have been, IMO) or Afghanistan (which we'd be out of by now if Dubya hadn't dropped the ball there in his pell-mell rush into Iraq).  I also think it's bogus to support drone strikes alone in Pakistan because they won't do a damn thing by themselves.
Having said that, I agree with you that in Libya we may have opened Pandora's Box.  We certainly know that some of the rebels are creatures of Al Queda.  That's why we should NOT give them anti-aircraft missiles.

-- Modified on 3/24/2011 2:39:33 PM

I have said the same thing for as long as I have been on this board.

I have also defended Obama on more substantive issues.  Very early on, he took some stands about parents shutting down TV for some hours a day.  He also did a few things re schools that I liked.  (Since then I have had disagreements with some of his school policies, when I thought he caved to unions to the detriment of kids. But at that time, I did give credit.)

I have given him far more credit then most libs gave The Evil One (who I disagreed with on several issues.)

We have no idea who the "rebels" are.  Iran got us the Ayottolah, or how ever you spell it.

At least we should now what people are before we support them.

While I do give "The Evil One" very little credit, I did support his efforts on immigration and  the bill proposed by McCain (which, or course, he has long since repudiated).  So I, too, am perfectly willing to support and give credit to someone with whom I disagree on many things.  It's a sign of a large mind with a modicum of intellectual consistency.
Still, it's far too soon for you and I to have a bromance.

There would have been nobody left to support.  I do agree it's better to know who you're supporting before offering said support.  But we don't always have that luxury.  Also, your Iran analogy doesn't hold up.  We put the Shah in power and we knew exactly who the Ayatollah was.  He'd been fomenting trouble from Paris for  years.  We did not force the Shah out and even gave him asylum when he fled.  That's what led to the hostage crisis.  There are lots of better analogies, even with Castro.  He only revealed himself to be a Commie and an enemy of the US after he came to power.

But if you are putting in people who may be just as bad or worse, what have you gotten?  

I can understand the desire to stop mass killings, but why there?  

Syria may be stepping up its suppression. When Old Man Assad was in power, he leveled the town of Hama, killing tens of thousands of people.  (I was in Hama a few years ago. They did a rather nice job of re-building after the people learned their lesson. More new building than any other town in Syria.)

If the son decides he should follow his old man's tactics, do we go in there to stop the murder?

Yemen fired a lot of bullets into a crowd and isn't backing down. Do we set up a No Fly Zone there.  Bahrain?  

First, you have to articulate your principle.  Do we go into every place where the legal leader is threatening severe retaliation on rebels?  If not, why here?

Gosh, three years ago, the big complaint was Bush f'ed up.  You should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER get involved in someone else's civil war.

Oh, well. Let's forget that principle.  That was a good limit on Bush.

If I recall, another one of the big arguments against the Last Pres was "we are not the world's policeman."  

It isn't as if they will like us.  We saved Islamic butt in Kosovo and then a person from Kosovo kills Americans in Germany.  That worked well.

Finally, I beg to differ. You say we knew who the Ayatollah was. You may have, but Carter had no idea.  Read the things Carter said about him.  Carter thought that the Ayatollah was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Here, there are reports that Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels.  That kind of give me a hint that I don't know if they are our friends.

Especially in terms of following the same principles re Syria and Yemen.  I sincerely doubt we will.  But I understand that in the real world it's just not possible to always be consistent, you just do the best you can given the limitations.
As for Libya, I think we jumped in because we thought it would be easy.  The country has a puny  military, is run by a vicious clown prince that even the Arabs hate and the geography is favorable for intervention at relatively low cost.  Let's hope it works out.  I suspect our "principles" will change for other  situations.
Re Carter and the Ayatollah, I don't recall what he said about him.  If Carter really said nice things about the Ayatollah then he's an even bigger fool than I thought.

You completely miss the point of my question, and quite frankly you are too stupid to have a conversation with.

It is not so hard is it. You are trying to put in nice square box you know about. Everyone asking the question is clueless about that part of the world. Until two weeks ago most didn't know where Libya was or on which continent it is and now all of a sudden everyone is an expert. Most thought Libya was a middle-eastern country while it is in North Africa. Probably most doesn't know Libya was an Italian Colony and they fought Italians for 30 years, descendants of those who fought Italians are the opposition.

When some European's opposed Bush on Iraq, people wanted rename French Fries and boycott French Wine and Cheese, etc. Do you understand the meaning of an "Alliance" or "Treaty"?

Millions may be getting slaughtered (millions may be bit of an exaggeration), is anyone using tanks and air craft? Your argument is "all or nothing", it may work in your personal sphere but it doesn't work that way in "geopolitics". It is same the madness as cutting taxes while harping about fiscal conservatism and balanced budget, a hollow argument bordering "ridiculous"!

The oil argument is pure rubbish. Indeed, the oil is very high quality but the known reserves will only last 63 years at the current production rate of 1.2 million barrels a day compared to Iraq which has the second largest known reserves compared to Saudi and Iraq's crude is much, much cheaper to extract and Halliburton gets to dig the wells and build pipelines. Way more lucrative.

You really don't know shit but pretend to know everything. The quality you have is arrogance and you blend it well with your stupidity then you call others moron, stupid and other names.

You really don't have response because you don't know shit then, you take the offensive position and tell people they didn't understand the question.

Did you even know where Libya is? Do you know anything about North African history other than what you hear Faux News? I bet the first time heard Gadaffi was after Lockerbie bombing, you stupid dumb ass, arrogant moron.